Lion is off to a great start, user reviews and industry reaction have been fantastic. Lion is a huge step forward, it’s not only packed with innovative features but it’s incredibly easy for users to update their Macs to the best OS we’ve ever made.

Lion has 250 new features, with a lot relating to Mac App Store support.

11 user comments

Kidding aside, if this is indeed a new OS & the Apple crowd got it for as little as a $30 upgrade, Kudos for them. M$ should take a big F*^&$ing note. This $150-225 a swat is fleecing to say the least.

Granted, at present, I'm still seeing full versions of the software (reformat the HDD & start over) still costing $139, but I could be wrong/corrected. Buuuuuut stiiiilllll..... An upgrade for $30!!! You can even get it on a flash drive for $70, now how tits is that? Billy Bob wouldn't even take you to the movies or throw a burger down your throat before playing hide the salami on his OS.

I don't know... Is it me or do I sense a world apocalypse soon upon us? How many seals have already been broken here?

Well if you're upgrading from XP to windows 7 I think their price is somewhat justified, there are huge noticeable differences. Mac claims that but for what I use mine for, I really haven't noticed much. From Tiger to Leopard, my Mac stopped crashing when looking through file folders. From Leopard to Snow Leopard, my Mac felt a little faster, and they changed the Expose which I now hate. I'm not even going to bother with Lion, and if I do that means my new laptop has arived and my iMac is listed on Kijiji.

Originally posted by xnonsuchx: Actually, what MS has been wanting to do for several years is to charge monthly usage fees for Windows rather than sell copies. They just haven't figured out how to sell it as something GOOD.

No, they just realize that they couldn't get away with it...Linux is 100% free and (in most cases) is a far superior OS for business. Remember, most companies get Windows for under $20 a license, or preinstalled on computers that are cheaper than their IT department can make from parts. With most companies cutting everything to the bone it is amazing that Windows still hangs on as well as it does...add a monthly service fee and windows will start to disappear from offices...and once it does that, the home market will dry up about as fast as the market for a console that has been discontinued. After that, it would become nothing but a crummy OS used by only a few people who are either too stubborn or too ignorant to switch (like OSX).

So then I am to assume "Lion" is more like a service pack than an OS? Kind of Like Ubuntu releasing another 6 month update? If this being the case and because I'm not a Mac fan & grossly uneducated on the platform, I'll have looked like a tool... Which means I would have to jump on the bandwagon & bash Steve Jobs for getting away with actually charging his customers for service updates that should have been subjected to 'his' software in the first place.

And on top of all of this these idiots want to fight & complain about intellectual property...

Originally posted by xnonsuchx: Actually, what MS has been wanting to do for several years is to charge monthly usage fees for Windows rather than sell copies. They just haven't figured out how to sell it as something GOOD.

No, they just realize that they couldn't get away with it...Linux is 100% free and (in most cases) is a far superior OS for business. Remember, most companies get Windows for under $20 a license, or preinstalled on computers that are cheaper than their IT department can make from parts. With most companies cutting everything to the bone it is amazing that Windows still hangs on as well as it does...add a monthly service fee and windows will start to disappear from offices...and once it does that, the home market will dry up about as fast as the market for a console that has been discontinued. After that, it would become nothing but a crummy OS used by only a few people who are either too stubborn or too ignorant to switch (like OSX).

Now a days when you can just download whole OS packages, that advantage is lost. Also, have you ever used on of apples laptops? A windows laptop generally is much more frustrating to use, to the point where you have to use an external mouse. Idk how people do it, i work so much slower on one. But that defeats the whole point of the laptop. It really isn't a terrible OS. There's a lot of people who don't even know that linux exists. These people and others who aren't concerned about overclocking, swapping graphics cards, or customization on a certain level. Prefer OSX. It gives them a much more smoother OS to run their needs on. It's easy for them to find almost anything compared to a lot of people who just save everything to their desktop. It can also run windows if someone needs it. And there's a lot under the hood, like mounting disk images natively rather than having to get a certain software on windows. Fanboys of any kind who just bash other OS are just bad all around wether they be apple fanboys or acer elititsts.

Originally posted by LordRuss: So then I am to assume "Lion" is more like a service pack than an OS? Kind of Like Ubuntu releasing another 6 month update?

New OS vs updated OS is a very grey area nowadays...new versions of Mac OS X, Windows or Linux distros are not written from scratch, so it's debatable to say any any new versions are a new OS. There's also often very little in new versions that couldn't have been added as an update to previous versions. However, 'updates' are generally for bug fixes/patches and new hardware support (and should be free), so it's not really wrong to call a new version with a lot of new features a new OS (regardless of whether you think those new features are useful or not).

Originally posted by LordRuss: So then I am to assume "Lion" is more like a service pack than an OS? Kind of Like Ubuntu releasing another 6 month update?

New OS vs updated OS is a very grey area nowadays...new versions of Mac OS X, Windows or Linux distros are not written from scratch, so it's debatable to say any any new versions are a new OS. There's also often very little in new versions that couldn't have been added as an update to previous versions. However, 'updates' are generally for bug fixes/patches and new hardware support (and should be free), so it's not really wrong to call a new version with a lot of new features a new OS (regardless of whether you think those new features are useful or not).

Agreed, plus OSX has updates as well, so we'll see OSX 10.7.1, 10.7.2 and so on, just as Windows has SP1, SP2, etc.

To answer someone's post above about Windows hanging on, they do pretty well with corporate licenses and the penetration of Windows in the market is obvious, but don't forget about Office, Server, Exchange, Sharepoint and other enterprise software they offer. That's where they make their cheddar.

Sure there are Linux alternatives, but most folks don't want the hassle of configuring those, especially if the hardware vendor doesn't support Linux, then you're totally screwed. (ie. video cards, networking, etc.)

Also, I can agree that OSX and Linux might be more easy or more intuitive for some, but when you NEED to run a game or find a piece of software, Windows far exceeds the offerings for the latter two platforms. OSX isn't bad in that department and with the recent Apple resurgence, actually has more support than years ago, but in general you're only going to use OSX in a graphic production environment or a mom/pop email and web machine, where you don't want to fix their computer every 2 weeks due to infection.

The same could be said for Linux, but I don't know many production people that will use Open Office and GIMP over MS office and Photoshop, both for example, in a business environment. That's more like playtime for enthusiasts that pinch pennies or refuse to give into corporate greed IMO.

Originally posted by SProdigy: Sure there are Linux alternatives, but most folks don't want the hassle of configuring those, especially if the hardware vendor doesn't support Linux, then you're totally screwed. (ie. video cards, networking, etc.)
...
The same could be said for Linux, but I don't know many production people that will use Open Office and GIMP over MS office and Photoshop, both for example, in a business environment. That's more like playtime for enthusiasts that pinch pennies or refuse to give into corporate greed IMO.

That's something the Linux geeks just won't see/admit to. I've used Linux since some of the first distros appeared (when installing was still all text-based). While it's far easier to install and use now for more than the super-geeks, it's only really easy for ANYONE to use if they're sticking to web browsing and other built-in apps/games/utilities, but could turn into a major hassle as soon as you need to configure hardware or install a downloaded program (many of which require you to know where in the Linux filesystem certain files are and some of which are actually source code packages for you to compile yourself). Even just setting up a printer can be a bit of a headache, and besides the Linux kernel version (which you see in grub during boot), how is a regular user supposed to know what versions of GTK+, GLib, Pango, libstdc, DBus, etc. they have before trying to install downloaded software? Or are users just supposed to wait the weeks to months, if ever, for that software to maybe show up in the distro's repository?

Unless you know about the inner workings of Linux, you just wouldn't know what to do in those situations. And the still prevalent use of man pages instead of detailed built-in help doesn't help either. Some would also argue that not having more 'standardized' distros hurts too, even though others say that's one of the best things about Linux (besides being free, as long as you don't need any support). It's come a long way, but it still has a ways to go before it is truly a good alternative for all.